Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields online intermediaries such as social media platforms from civil liability for content users post — and reply comments — but also allows them to moderate illegal, lewd, or otherwise  harmful content as they see fit. These dual protections afforded to internet-based companies by Section 230 have been credited for the innovation and growth of social media companies, but the law is often criticized across partisan lines. Does Section 230 invite too much content moderation, or too little? And how, if at all, should Section 230 be reformed?

Over the past year, our American Enterprise Institute programming has offered a number of different voices on Section 230 reform — some for, some against, and some undecided. On this episode, Shane is joined by Neil Fried, to hear his argument for why Section 230 should be reformed.

Neil is a former chief counsel for communications and technology to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He testified before the committee in June 2020 in favor of Section 230 reform. As the founder of DigitalFrontiers Advocacy, he advises clients on media, technology, and copyright law. His recent writings on Section 230 include “Why Section 230 Is Actually a Rule of Un-Civil Procedure,” “The Myth of Internet Exceptionalism,” and “Why Section 230 Isn't Really a Good Samaritan Provision.”